It's like any other tier - some look nice, some look amazing (Priest, Warrior), some look bad, Hunter looks terrible. But it IS exclusive, and they made the choice to preserve that specifically by recolouring T7 instead of using the same colour. Friend of mine still gets whispers about using the original Faith set on his priest and has to explain to people it isn't available anymore.

Me and a friend of mine get glances every time because we have Hydra pets. The original Spirit Wolf back when they revamped Dustwallow that required a Priest to MC and a Hunter to use Tame Beast with Heroism to get it was also amazing for a while.

halabar wrote:Come on.. do you actually really even like T3? at least for me, the hunter T3 is Meh at best, and the recolors are actually better looking. I think T3 is romaticized since the original raid is no longer around. If T2 wasn't available, people would be just as up in arms about that, and most of T2 was butt-ugly.

This argument is trending towards the lawnchairs, and I can do that as well.. I'm not thrilled that Blizz is introducing non-rare non-exotic versions of some of the pet skins that were previously only exotic rares. I put in the time and effort to get those rares, and now everyone can have them. Woe is me.

No. I hate it Tier 3 sets for a lot of the classes. Warrior, Warlock, Priest, come to mind as cool. But that isn't the point. Remember, I left my paladin in the dust a while ago. And I'm really glad that they didn't go back and try to "give" DK's the option of "T1 - 6". While I the player would have been happy to have more options, I the player would have been sad that it was something else again that they were giving to the masses.

Not everything needs to be given to everyone. People who did things, who accomplished things, should look at their spoils, and feel good for having it. People who didn't do those things, and didn't accomplish those things, shouldn't be able to get it, just because it isn't fair that they didn't get it.

I don't lament not having T3 because I didn't play during Naxx. I wouldn't lament not having Sunwell gear because my guild wasn't good enough to complete sunwell, if they had taken it out.

I don't cry that I don't have the ghost wolf from dustwallow, or the hydra model from Sholazar because I didn't know about them in time to take my hunter to go get them.

The T3 choice was an odd choice, but perhaps they did it because so many people were asking for it. As it is, it will be quite hard to get a full set from the BMAH. You would have to catch all the auctions, and then win them all.

Getting a full T3 set might take you the entire expansion of camping the BMAH, and a LOT of gold.

Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.

T3 has horrendously bad low rez textures to the point where it looks like you're wearing paper armor.

The thing people seem to be missing is that these mounts and things aren't going to always be available. It's not like Mim's head is going to be up for bid every week to the point where it becomes a mount you see everyone and their mother on.

What amuses me most is people didn't care about the prestige of Invincible and Mim's Head when guilds were selling it every week back in Wrath but the idea that one person could somehow bypass the reduced drop rate by outbidding their entire server paying possibly hundreds of thousands of gold is despicable.

Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."

Teranoid wrote:Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."

I can see that point of view. (the not fair about gold thing) When I left the game, I was down to ~20k or so, but my half full GB was probably going to pull in.... ~75-100k in Panda opening (which reminds me... BL better cash in).

For me, offering things on the BMAH that were skill rewards at one time, or removed from the game like T3, is just not a good idea. I understand that people like it, but in the end, I feel it hurts the culture of the game. Not that it should surprise me, I feel like a lot of big additions have hurt it.

Teranoid wrote:Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."

I can see that point of view. (the not fair about gold thing) When I left the game, I was down to ~20k or so, but my half full GB was probably going to pull in.... ~75-100k in Panda opening (which reminds me... BL better cash in).

For me, offering things on the BMAH that were skill rewards at one time, or removed from the game like T3, is just not a good idea. I understand that people like it, but in the end, I feel it hurts the culture of the game. Not that it should surprise me, I feel like a lot of big additions have hurt it.

But it's OK for guilds to sell them?

Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.

Guilds selling them also ruins the prestige. Handmaiden is far less special than Mimi's specifically because there are dozens being sold every week. I think it's up to 12% of the raiding tracked by WoWprogress having Heroic Madness down now, that also makes it less special.

Teranoid wrote:Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."

I can see that point of view. (the not fair about gold thing) When I left the game, I was down to ~20k or so, but my half full GB was probably going to pull in.... ~75-100k in Panda opening (which reminds me... BL better cash in).

For me, offering things on the BMAH that were skill rewards at one time, or removed from the game like T3, is just not a good idea. I understand that people like it, but in the end, I feel it hurts the culture of the game. Not that it should surprise me, I feel like a lot of big additions have hurt it.

But it's OK for guilds to sell them?

Didn't I just say I didn't like that either?

Oh Right. I DID

Shoju wrote:I cared then, I cared in BC when people were selling bears. I don't like the practice and would never do it.

The key issue that really needs to be resolved by various governing bodies is: What defines "ownership" in a virtual world, if anything can be owned at all, and what are the requirements to maintain ownership, and how does that occur when a vendor controls the virtual world.

Shoju's clearly in the camp of there is no ownership at all, and that the developer of the world owns everything (and if I was a software developer I'd probably agree). But I think we are going to get to the point in virtual places (and in social media) that the issue needs to be addressed, and the rights or lack thereof can't simply be buried in a TOS/EULA.

We won't be able to address account selling under that underlying issue is resolved.

I guess here we're making a mess by mixing up account with actual games.

What has been ruled is that when you buy a piece of code it's yours, hence if you want you can resell the digital copy on the principle that you could have done the same if you bought a physical disc, it is your copy, you have the rights to own that copy of that licensed game, it's yours.

When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.

Shoju wrote:I don't play games so that I can pay my way to the top, or exploit something to beat it. I play games for the challenge. Not because I want to brag to someone else and say "LOOK AT ALL THIS HARD WORK!" But because I don't personally feel the sense of satisfaction in playing a game with things that I didn't feel like I earned.

If, as you say, you play games for the challenge and only for that, for the personal satisfaction of having earned something, how does it change to your personal feeling if other people obtain it in a different way? You know, people are different, the fact that you love a challenge doesn't mean that everyone is playing this game for the same reason, people have different motives.

If you truly played only for the personal satisfaction of completing a challenge you wouldn't care how other obtained the same coloured pixels you've been given, because you would be satisfied with your own challenge.

Since, on the other hand, you are very sensitive and polemic about others obtaining the same coloured pixels, it appears that contrary to what you claim, you actually care a lot about others and about showing your different coloured pixels that make you stand out as different and/or better.

For how much you can claim that you don't care, all your words point very much in the direction that you DO care, and a lot, you are just lying to yourself.

Mind that I am more sympathetic towards your point and I somehow share the idea, however, we have to consider that the vast majority of users play for different reasons, if their buying a mount gives me new raiding content, hell yeah, sell the whole stable!

degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.

Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.

Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.

degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.

Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.

Since the TOS/EULA language pretty explicitly states that you don't own the account, you don't own the pixels, you don't own any of it, this is the part that I'm having a hard time with.

They sold you the right to play with, or be accompanied by, or carried by, a different set of pixels, because you paid more money. They didn't sell you a piece of merchandise. If it were merchandise, and you could own it, you could then, theoretically, remove it from their servers.

degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.

Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.

Since the TOS/EULA language pretty explicitly states that you don't own the account, you don't own the pixels, you don't own any of it, this is the part that I'm having a hard time with.

They sold you the right to play with, or be accompanied by, or carried by, a different set of pixels, because you paid more money. They didn't sell you a piece of merchandise. If it were merchandise, and you could own it, you could then, theoretically, remove it from their servers.

But you can't. So you don't own it.

Shoju, I agree with you, under the current laws.

But what if it was classified as merchandise? (Hell, I believe I am getting charged sales tax on it. If it's not merchandise, than why am I paying a sales tax?)

If I buy a pet from the Blizzard store... what are the rules on that one? I just purchased it (which should mean I own it, yes?) However I have no possible way to sell it to someone else once I've attached it to my account, since it is bound to the account. If it's for some reason different, then I suppose I don't really own the plushie that came with the Windrider Cub either.

Skye1013 wrote:If I buy a pet from the Blizzard store... what are the rules on that one? I just purchased it (which should mean I own it, yes?) However I have no possible way to sell it to someone else once I've attached it to my account, since it is bound to the account. If it's for some reason different, then I suppose I don't really own the plushie that came with the Windrider Cub either.

You certainly don't own the pixels, nor the database record that marks that they are bound to your account, nor the design, nor the programming animation.

I do think you should have to right to transfer it to another player. Shoju would disagree.

Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.

Skye1013 wrote:If I buy a pet from the Blizzard store... what are the rules on that one? I just purchased it (which should mean I own it, yes?) However I have no possible way to sell it to someone else once I've attached it to my account, since it is bound to the account. If it's for some reason different, then I suppose I don't really own the plushie that came with the Windrider Cub either.

You certainly don't own the pixels, nor the database record that marks that they are bound to your account, nor the design, nor the programming animation.

I do think you should have to right to transfer it to another player. Shoju would disagree.

You paid 25 bucks for a stuffed animal, and the people who run the game were nice and unlocked a line of code for you.

Congrats on purchasing something, instead of the other transactions, where you purhcased.... nothing.

Buy it for real money, and make gold in the game.... Eh... no, not really my choice for a business model / idea / principle.

degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.

Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.

Well, items for currency have now been sold for ages, the point is still that whatever you pay for is linked to the account that you are given to use, you aren't strictly buying anything, it's more like you are paying to unlock certain benefits.

degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.

Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.

Well, items for currency have now been sold for ages, the point is still that whatever you pay for is linked to the account that you are given to use, you aren't strictly buying anything, it's more like you are paying to unlock certain benefits.

And that works a bit better when there are actual benefits, such as the Rift boosts or LoTR packs.

Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.

Skye1013 wrote:If I buy a pet from the Blizzard store... what are the rules on that one? I just purchased it (which should mean I own it, yes?) However I have no possible way to sell it to someone else once I've attached it to my account, since it is bound to the account. If it's for some reason different, then I suppose I don't really own the plushie that came with the Windrider Cub either.

You certainly don't own the pixels, nor the database record that marks that they are bound to your account, nor the design, nor the programming animation.

I do think you should have to right to transfer it to another player. Shoju would disagree.

I have friends that use that when buying CD's. They buy a game\movie\music, try to make a copy and some CD's are protected. Since they cannot make a safety copy (that they are allowed by law)they go back to the store and complain, since the store cannot give them a CD that you can copy, they are forced to return the money.Why can they do it? Because the wife is a lawier.

Unability to sell you game CD's, unability to sell you digital pets are all already illegal here, the issue is that for 10/20/30€ it's too much of a PITA to go into court or complain... :SBut in terms of accounts you aren't buying a account, you are buying a monthly licence to play a game. So you cannot sell it.

But it's all semantics and law... You can't by law forbid someone from re-selling the digital pets? Just do a promotion. Buy 1month premium subscription and you get a pet added to the account.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

Skye1013 wrote:If I buy a pet from the Blizzard store... what are the rules on that one? I just purchased it (which should mean I own it, yes?) However I have no possible way to sell it to someone else once I've attached it to my account, since it is bound to the account. If it's for some reason different, then I suppose I don't really own the plushie that came with the Windrider Cub either.

You certainly don't own the pixels, nor the database record that marks that they are bound to your account, nor the design, nor the programming animation.

I do think you should have to right to transfer it to another player. Shoju would disagree.

I have friends that use that when buying CD's. They buy a game\movie\music, try to make a copy and some CD's are protected. Since they cannot make a safety copy (that they are allowed by law)they go back to the store and complain, since the store cannot give them a CD that you can copy, they are forced to return the money.Why can they do it? Because the wife is a lawier.

Unability to sell you game CD's, unability to sell you digital pets are all already illegal here, the issue is that for 10/20/30€ it's too much of a PITA to go into court or complain... :SBut in terms of accounts you aren't buying a account, you are buying a monthly licence to play a game. So you cannot sell it.

But it's all semantics and law... You can't by law forbid someone from re-selling the digital pets? Just do a promotion. Buy 1month premium subscription and you get a pet added to the account.

I have no idea what HERE means, but I would suggest that you verify your statement, as buying a CD and adding a digital pet to your account are two very different actions, whereas in the case of the CD you are acquiring the property, in the second case you are not acquiring any property, but the right to use a bunch of pixels in your leased account, hence the regulation related to the pet should be limited by the contract you have accepted when starting the lease.

It's like renting a car, they charge you X for the rental and then they tell you that for a one-off price they will always give you a free full tank of gas. That one off purchase is strictly limited to your rentals and you can't sell to anyone else your right to a tank of gas with every rental as it's limited by the rental regulation.